|
Hillary Clinton; I don't get it
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 6 2008, 04:15 PM (1,520 Views)
|
|
RTW
|
Feb 8 2008, 03:11 PM
Post #91
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
There are a few honest people out there.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Feb 8 2008, 05:27 PM
Post #92
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Feb 8 2008, 01:08 PM
Regarding the items in Rumor/Reputation/Personality, about the only one I have seen evidence for is "boring". (But next to GW Bush, she's practically charismatic so I guess that's not all that important. :D) Perhaps there is some truth in that list, but I haven't seen evidence in support of it. As such, I tend to believe it's one of those "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" types of things. And as the lies caught on and more and more people joined the anti-Hillary bandwagon, some people probably even started urban legends such as her alleged treatment of Marines in the White House. (Regarding the treatment of Marines, I freely admit that is my best guess and that I could very well be quite wrong. But, like Minuet, I spent considerable time trying to find evidence for this on the internet and all I found were unsubstantiated claims - very similar to what Minuet found, which is how I arrived at my conclusion.)
Yup, Im lieing when I relate my ill feelings at the way Clintion ran for senitor in my home state. I hope a lot of people hear my lie and take it to heart. To insure that this happens I plan to repeat this lie over and over agian.
signed;
Your faithful corispondnet in the Vast Right Wing Conspericy (VRWC) and charimen of the lie about Hillary comity therin.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sgt. Jaggs
|
Feb 8 2008, 09:49 PM
Post #93
|
How about a Voyager Movie
- Posts:
- 4,792
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #90
- Joined:
- December 28, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 8 2008, 02:37 PM
- RTW
- Feb 8 2008, 02:12 PM
I don't see it on his list. I see him stating his assumption/point of view that it should be on the list, but apparently none of the people who actually dislike Hillary gave that as a reason. On the other hand, people say they dislike McCain (for example) due to his policies and past decisions but I know better. They actually dislike him because he'd old. I mean, com'on, if these people who dislike McCain were smart enough to know why they disliked him, they'd undoubtedly support him. Someone has to set them straight.
Actually I have seen people on this board say they don't want to vote for McCain because of his age.
I believe myself as well as Witchita metioned the McCain Age as a concern. For me its a whopper.
As it will be for all Sub 30's voters looking at Barack. (If hes the Nominee)
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 8 2008, 10:06 PM
Post #94
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
-
Damn, I hate it when work gets in the way of posting. I started this thread and then so much happened at work since then that I have had no time to post. So I'm going to summarize for now.
I know the feeling. Last week I did look up the conclusions from the report you suggested, copied them to reply to later and got so busy that I didn't think of them again until a week later.
- ImpulseEngine
-
So far, the reasons for disliking Hillary seem to fall into the following categories:
1) Her political views/positions
2) Rumor/Reputation/Personality (I lumped these together because they may or may not be true, but many believe them to be. These are things like her alleged treatment of White House Marines as First Lady, a lack of genuineness, temper, boring personality, campaign tactics, manipulativeness, air of entitlement)
3) Previous work or actions (national healthcare, It Takes A Village, staying married to Bill after he cheated on her, scandals during Bill's terms)
4) Somerled's inability to spell paradigm.
5) Opinions (she overstepped her boundaries as First Lady)
One you forgot is that not everyone agrees that she is in fact a "strong, independent woman" and some find her actions inconsistent with her claims of being a feminist.
- ImpusleEngine
-
The examples listed in parentheses weren't intended to be complete so I'm sure I missed some. I'm just describing the general idea.
For me, I think Dandandat may have been correct after all when he said:
QUOTE As a Clinton supporter I think you fall to see exactly what it is that people don’t like about her, because you don’t agree that she exhibits these qualities. Which is why you think it is only about her being a strong woman.
Regarding her political views, they aren't that far from my own so of course that doesn't bother me.
I don't fault her for her views. I do disagree with many of them and I do think calling her on itwhen she acts in a way inconsistent with her stated views is completely reasonable.
Personally, I regard Hillary as "hawkish" in many ways - and I am not alone in that. Code Pink and some other anti-war groups have questioned whether she is sincere in her claims.
- ImpulseEngine
-
Regarding the items in Rumor/Reputation/Personality, about the only one I have seen evidence for is "boring". (But next to GW Bush, she's practically charismatic so I guess that's not all that important. ) Perhaps there is some truth in that list, but I haven't seen evidence in support of it. As such, I tend to believe it's one of those "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" types of things. And as the lies caught on and more and more people joined the anti-Hillary bandwagon, some people probably even started urban legends such as her alleged treatment of Marines in the White House. (Regarding the treatment of Marines, I freely admit that is my best guess and that I could very well be quite wrong. But, like Minuet, I spent considerable time trying to find evidence for this on the internet and all I found were unsubstantiated claims - very similar to what Minuet found, which is how I arrived at my conclusion.)
Actually, the treament was not limited to Marines but happened to every military branch who served there.
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.
But I really don't want to talk about the politics of the sources.
As anyone who follows the current campaign has heard dozens of times, the military tends to vote Republican. (Not all military are Republican and/or conservative, but they do tend toward the majority.)
So, if someone served in the military and served in the White, chances are they are more likely than not going to be conservative.
If all conservative sources are going to be considered questionable because they are conservative, then the very people who most likely could give first hand information about what REALLY happened as far as her treatment of the military are not going to be believed. If every witness is going to be rejected, then, of course, it is impossible to substantiate what really happened.
I will simply repeat that I have read enough first hand narratives of the treatment to believe it occurred more than once. In response to what Intrepid said earlier, the most believable of the narratives (which was in a book I read and therefore not linkable) was from a major who, while confirming that he had been placed in awkward situations by the First Lady, did not focus on that/those incidents because that is the nature of being in the military. What angered him was the treatment that he witnessed of lower level member of the military who were placed in the position of either disobeying the First Lady or their superior officer.
- ImpusleEngine
-
Regarding her previous work and actions, I just don't have the same problems with those as some people apparently do. Her work on national healthcare may have been problematic, but I think she has proven her ability to learn from past mistakes - for example, Wichita's description of how she learned about the military. I have no reason to believe she would try the same approach and, in fact, she is campaigning on a different one, despite some on the right trying to claim it hasn't changed. While I may not agree that "it takes a village" necessarily to raise a child, I do believe a village can help a great deal and can be quite advantageous compared to its absence. As for her sticking with Bill, that's her business and that's all I have to say about it. There are too many factors that must have gone into that very personal decision of hers so who am I to judge either way when I can't possible know even close to all of those factors...?
Well, when you blame the failure of the national health care initiative on the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", you are not inspiring confidence in anyone that you have learned from your past mistakes. ("you=Hillary)
But, we will have to disagree on that one.
- ImpulseEngine
-
Finally, I disagree that Hillary overstepped her bounds as First Lady. First Ladies typically get involved with some particular issue or issues. Why couldn't that be something like national healthcare? This is the 21st century (and was the end of the 20th then). Maybe we should recognize that when we elect a President, the spouse will be involved too. Maybe that involvement should be more than what it has typically been in the past. Things change with time and change isn't necessarily bad. I don't see the big deal.
I not only disagree with you, I find that attitude to be frightening.
The basic tenets of the Constitution are a division of authority and a system of checks and balances. The president IS accountable under that system. His/Her spouse is NOT.
I have no problem with the First Lady having causes. However, when she/he holds hearing that are characterized as "official" they have to follow proscribed guidelines. Failing to follow Sunshine Laws, rewarding witness in amounts far in excess of governments standards for such work, sending much of that work to "friends" who have been helpful politically in the past and are expected to be again .... that is not acceptable.
Change the Constitution FIRST - then try this "co-presidency" concept.... not the other way around. The Constitution has provisions for amending itself. If the proscribed number of states agree with the theory, then it will not be something IMPOSED on the American people, but something they supported according to the guidelines of the Constitution.
- ImpulseEngine
-
So, what Dan said probably does explain why I don't have the extreme dislike for Hillary that so many do seem to have. However, I'm still not entirely sure what makes Hillary receive different treatment. There are certainly other politicians whose views are disliked, who have undesirable personality characteristics, whose past work is disliked, etc., but who don't become objects of nearly the same animosity.
Well, truthfully, I do think that there are other politicians that get that amount of animosity and even more. President Bush is one of them. Never have I seen someone so often simultaneously called the "village idiot" AND responsible for absolutely every act of nature, every difference of opinion, and every bad NFL referee call in my life.
People have a right to call him an idiot. People have a right to think him the mastermind of every conspiracy. He's not both however, but yet you hear all the time that he is.
- ImplulseEngine
-
I still do think that at least some part of this - and probably only for some people - is because she's a woman. I think Minuet was on the right track with what I'm talking about. Men who are assertive or steadfast are viewed as "strong". Assertive women are often viewed as "bitchy" or "uncompromising". I also think some men see successful women as a threat.
The only connection that the animosity and her being woman have among the people that I know that dislike her is that she is a hypocrite as a feminist.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Feb 8 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #95
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Feb 8 2008, 05:27 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Feb 8 2008, 01:08 PM
Regarding the items in Rumor/Reputation/Personality, about the only one I have seen evidence for is "boring". (But next to GW Bush, she's practically charismatic so I guess that's not all that important. :D) Perhaps there is some truth in that list, but I haven't seen evidence in support of it. As such, I tend to believe it's one of those "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" types of things. And as the lies caught on and more and more people joined the anti-Hillary bandwagon, some people probably even started urban legends such as her alleged treatment of Marines in the White House. (Regarding the treatment of Marines, I freely admit that is my best guess and that I could very well be quite wrong. But, like Minuet, I spent considerable time trying to find evidence for this on the internet and all I found were unsubstantiated claims - very similar to what Minuet found, which is how I arrived at my conclusion.)
Yup, Im lieing when I relate my ill feelings at the way Clintion ran for senitor in my home state. I hope a lot of people hear my lie and take it to heart. To insure that this happens I plan to repeat this lie over and over agian. signed; Your faithful corispondnet in the Vast Right Wing Conspericy (VRWC) and charimen of the lie about Hillary comity therin.
That probably fits better under the opinion category and wasn't the type of thing I was talking about with "repeat a lie often enough..." Nor was I talking about the average person today regarding the lies - today, the lies have been around long enough that a lot is just misinformation. Nor did I even specifically mean "lie" necessarily. What I meant is that some people probably originally overreacted to her in some way and either explicitly lied or merely exaggerated some of her faults out of their own emotions about it. Either way, their listeners may have believed what they said, took it literally, and began saying similar things in their own discussions. The more it got repeated, the more people would have thought "well, if so many people think so, there must be some truth in it". Obviously, that's oversimplified, but is perhaps a better attempt to be more precise in what I meant. The word "lie", comes from the expression, but in this context could really just be "rumor" or "misinformation".
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Feb 8 2008, 10:34 PM
Post #96
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Wichita
- Feb 8 2008, 10:06 PM
One you forgot is that not everyone agrees that she is in fact a "strong, independent woman" and some find her actions inconsistent with her claims of being a feminist.
Point taken. Thanks.
- Quote:
-
Actually, the treament was not limited to Marines but happened to every military branch who served there.
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.
But I really don't want to talk about the politics of the sources.
As anyone who follows the current campaign has heard dozens of times, the military tends to vote Republican. (Not all military are Republican and/or conservative, but they do tend toward the majority.)
So, if someone served in the military and served in the White, chances are they are more likely than not going to be conservative.
If all conservative sources are going to be considered questionable because they are conservative, then the very people who most likely could give first hand information about what REALLY happened as far as her treatment of the military are not going to be believed. If every witness is going to be rejected, then, of course, it is impossible to substantiate what really happened.
I will simply repeat that I have read enough first hand narratives of the treatment to believe it occurred more than once. In response to what Intrepid said earlier, the most believable of the narratives (which was in a book I read and therefore not linkable) was from a major who, while confirming that he had been placed in awkward situations by the First Lady, did not focus on that/those incidents because that is the nature of being in the military. What angered him was the treatment that he witnessed of lower level member of the military who were placed in the position of either disobeying the First Lady or their superior officer. As I said earlier, I freely admit that I could be wrong. However, in defense of Minuet's sources, I found nothing better after spending considerable time looking. It's just not out there and that's a large part of the point. You say your best source was from a book. Without having read it myself, I can't agree or disagree with it. I'm just saying that it's difficult for me to believe she did these things right now with there being virtually no information available to me that supports her being guilty of what's alleged.
- Quote:
-
I not only disagree with you, I find that attitude to be frightening.
The basic tenets of the Constitution are a division of authority and a system of checks and balances. The president IS accountable under that system. His/Her spouse is NOT.
I have no problem with the First Lady having causes. However, when she/he holds hearing that are characterized as "official" they have to follow proscribed guidelines. Failing to follow Sunshine Laws, rewarding witness in amounts far in excess of governments standards for such work, sending much of that work to "friends" who have been helpful politically in the past and are expected to be again .... that is not acceptable.
Change the Constitution FIRST - then try this "co-presidency" concept.... not the other way around. The Constitution has provisions for amending itself. If the proscribed number of states agree with the theory, then it will not be something IMPOSED on the American people, but something they supported according to the guidelines of the Constitution. The President chooses his/her staff. Why can't the First Lady be one of those? Even if not formally named to a cabinet or other position, I don't see what it really matters. The argument seems to be it has never been that way, so why should it now? I still say, why not...? As for accountability, I disagree that she wasn't accountable. But even if not, than Bill was accountable for her actions since he was ultimately responsible for delegating responsibilities. So accountability remains one way or another.
- Quote:
-
Well, truthfully, I do think that there are other politicians that get that amount of animosity and even more. President Bush is one of them. Never have I seen someone so often simultaneously called the "village idiot" AND responsible for absolutely every act of nature, every difference of opinion, and every bad NFL referee call in my life.
People have a right to call him an idiot. People have a right to think him the mastermind of every conspiracy. He's not both however, but yet you hear all the time that he is. But it's commonplace for a President to receive such criticism. At least I can see where it comes from with him or any other President. The President holds the highest office in the country and will always be in opposition to at least one party. With Hillary, the animosity was there while she was First Lady and has followed her everywhere since. On the other hand, I predict we'll stop hearing so much about Bush after this year... Look at John Kerry. I think he too got a lot of animosity. But how much do you hear about him now? I wouldn't say we hear nothing, but very close to it.
- Quote:
-
The only connection that the animosity and her being woman have among the people that I know that dislike her is that she is a hypocrite as a feminist.  Well that's just it. I'm not sure people will necessarily admit it so you won't necessarily "hear" it. Furthermore, some people may even be unaware of it within themselves and yet deep-down her being a woman influences the negativity they regard her with.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Feb 8 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #97
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Feb 8 2008, 08:34 PM
The President chooses his/her staff. Why can't the First Lady be one of those? :shrug: Even if not formally named to a cabinet or other position, I don't see what it really matters. Formally appointed so she is accountable and can't conveniently avoid Sunshine Laws and the other unacceptable practices that Wichita noted? Sure - why not?
Informal appointments seem a bit analagous to "enemy combatants" vs "POWs". There are different standards of lawful treatment. Detainees who don't fit the definition of POW get classified as combatants to avoid certain limitations.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 8 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #98
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Feb 9 2008, 03:34 AM
- Quote:
-
As I said earlier, I freely admit that I could be wrong. However, in defense of Minuet's sources, I found nothing better after spending considerable time looking. It's just not out there and that's a large part of the point. You say your best source was from a book. Without having read it myself, I can't agree or disagree with it. I'm just saying that it's difficult for me to believe she did these things right now with there being virtually no information available to me that supports her being guilty of what's alleged.
- Impulse
-
You say your best source was from a book.
Not exactly ... it was the best source that specifically dealt with the issues that Intrepid raised.
Otherwise, since I have seen multiple, multiple references, over a period of years, to Hillary treating the military badly as First Lady, I can't respond to why you or Minuet haven't been able to find them.
- ImpulseEngine
-
The President chooses his/her staff. Why can't the First Lady be one of those? :shrug: Even if not formally named to a cabinet or other position, I don't see what it really matters. The argument seems to be it has never been that way, so why should it now? I still say, why not...? As for accountability, I disagree that she wasn't accountable. But even if not, than Bill was accountable for her actions since he was ultimately responsible for delegating responsibilities. So accountability remains one way or another.
Yes, the President does choose his staff. At least one previous president made his brother a Cabinet level officer.
Which makes the fact that Bill Clinton didn't appoint his wife to an "offical" staff position, but allowed her to act as if she had been far worse.
I don't know about other people's arguements, but mine was that a co-presidency is expressly NOT in the Constitution. We are not talking issues of tradition - we are talking issues of law.
You may be correct in theory, but, in practice, it was not handled that way. She violated, among other things, the Sunshine Law and was not held accountable. Either, the authority given to her to hold the meeting was deemed inappropriate - so, therefore, the Sunshine Law was not applicable and was therefore not violated - or she was not held accountable for violating the law.
Either way, no accountability existed in that situation.
- Quote:
-
But it's commonplace for a President to receive such criticism. At least I can see where it comes from with him or any other President. The President holds the highest office in the country and will always be in opposition to at least one party. With Hillary, the animosity was there while she was First Lady and has followed her everywhere since. On the other hand, I predict we'll stop hearing so much about Bush after this year... Look at John Kerry. I think he too got a lot of animosity. But how much do you hear about him now? I wouldn't say we hear nothing, but very close to it.
If it is commonplace for a president (or presidential candidate) to receive such criticism, then Hillary is NOT being treated differently.
She is a Presidential candidate.
Edit: Been thinking more about this last answer.
I think that you are comparing Hillary to the wrong people in asking your question ... sort of apples and oranges.
She was a First Lady first. She was an outspoken first lady.
I think that we can all agree that Laura Bush has not gotten the animosity that Hillary has ... but she also was never nearly as outspoken either.
So, who were the other outspoken First Ladies and what happened to them after the end of their husband's administration?
Nancy Reagan was one and she was disliked as well by many people. But she faded from view once she left the White House. Elinor Roosevelt was another, but she became a widow on her last day in the White House and people will give someone a break in that situation. When most left the White House, they LEFT the public stage.
Hillary basically walked out of the White House and into her own political career without a break. The animosity followed her from one to another because there was not break in between.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 9 2008, 12:13 AM
Post #99
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.
For the record I didn't set out to "prove" anything and I specifically said that I was posting that source to show the other side of the story and provide some balance. In fact this is what I said
- Quote:
-
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich. While trying to get more information I came accross the following article from 2002. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but I thought I would post it here in the interest of balance.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 9 2008, 12:22 AM
Post #100
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
Otherwise, since I have seen multiple, multiple references, over a period of years, to Hillary treating the military badly as First Lady, I can't respond to why you or Minuet haven't been able to find them.
I found references - but they were all refering back to one single source - the book I mentioned earlier that was authored by Gary Aldrich. Is that the book you read, or did you read a different book?
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 9 2008, 08:46 AM
Post #101
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 9 2008, 05:13 AM
- Quote:
-
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.
For the record I didn't set out to "prove" anything and I specifically said that I was posting that source to show the other side of the story and provide some balance. In fact this is what I said - Quote:
-
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich. While trying to get more information I came accross the following article from 2002. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but I thought I would post it here in the interest of balance.
OK, but that doesn't make the source you used any less partisian.
To provide some balance to your "balance" .... the same source recently devoted a considerable time, money and newspapers space to a multi-part series.
The subject? Iraqi and Afghanistan vets are violent time bombs - as a result of their military service - ready to go off.
It named 121 cases where veterans had been convicted or charged in cases where deaths had occurred.
Now, as someone who has seen Vietnam vets characterized as "violent killers", the intent to smear our current military members was clear and obvious.
I read two of the articles before being to disgusted to continue. In the first they presented the numbers. When you got past the headlines, you found the number of 121 included traffic accidents where someone died. In those cases, there was no evidence of violence or even of alcohol or drugs. Given the number of people who have served in the Middle East in the last 6 years, 121 didn't even make military equal to the stats on the general population in the same category, but they published the articles nonetheless
In the US, you can be charged with negligent homicide for an accident where you go too wide on a curve and hit a car or when you are speeding when an accident occurs. In fact, I know two people who have had relatives so charged. They were legally responsible for what they did but neither had an ounce of malice when they did it. They simply got careless and screwed up. Sadly, it could happen to any of the rest of us on any given day if we get distracted by the kids in the back seat or try and sneak in a cell phone call at the wrong time.
In the second article, they profiled a young National Guardsman who happened to be Mormon. They used the fact that he was Mormon to try and claim that he would have been like "this" if it weren't for his military service which made him like "that" The problem was that they didn't do their homework very welll.
I have many, many friends in the church who are in the Guard. I even know someone in the Guard who left to serve a 2-year mission. Before he left, he was required to provide the Guard with a letter signed by the leader of the ENTIRE LDS church that promised to recall him from his mission if his Guard unit was activated. His Guard unit was activated and he was recalled just as promised well before his Guard unit actually deployed. (In fact, he came home nearly a year before the unit actually deployed.)
The article tried to claim that he couldn't go on a mission because of his service which was completely incorrect.
The young man was not originally charged in the death of his wife, but confessed later. What the article glossed over was that he also was witnessing his parents long marriage disintegrate in the same period and was depondent over that as well.
By the time I was done reading, I wasn't convinced he actually killed her either. I don't doubt he has PSTD, but wondered if he was actually confessing to something that didn't ACTUALLY do because of his overall depression.
That was the balance that I thought of when I saw your source.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 9 2008, 08:49 AM
Post #102
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 9 2008, 05:22 AM
- Quote:
-
Otherwise, since I have seen multiple, multiple references, over a period of years, to Hillary treating the military badly as First Lady, I can't respond to why you or Minuet haven't been able to find them.
I found references - but they were all refering back to one single source - the book I mentioned earlier that was authored by Gary Aldrich. Is that the book you read, or did you read a different book?
Minuet,
Aldrich was an FBI agent as I recall. I stated that my book was written by person who was a major at the time of his service and his narrative was first person.
No, it was a different book. I wouldn't bother picking up a book by Aldrich let alone reading it.
And, again, he was not the ONLY source I have seen.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 9 2008, 10:27 PM
Post #103
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Wichita
- Feb 9 2008, 08:46 AM
- Minuet
- Feb 9 2008, 05:13 AM
- Quote:
-
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.
For the record I didn't set out to "prove" anything and I specifically said that I was posting that source to show the other side of the story and provide some balance. In fact this is what I said - Quote:
-
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich. While trying to get more information I came accross the following article from 2002. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but I thought I would post it here in the interest of balance.
OK, but that doesn't make the source you used any less partisian. To provide some balance to your "balance" .... the same source recently devoted a considerable time, money and newspapers space to a multi-part series. The subject? Iraqi and Afghanistan vets are violent time bombs - as a result of their military service - ready to go off. It named 121 cases where veterans had been convicted or charged in cases where deaths had occurred. Now, as someone who has seen Vietnam vets characterized as "violent killers", the intent to smear our current military members was clear and obvious. I read two of the articles before being to disgusted to continue. In the first they presented the numbers. When you got past the headlines, you found the number of 121 included traffic accidents where someone died. In those cases, there was no evidence of violence or even of alcohol or drugs. Given the number of people who have served in the Middle East in the last 6 years, 121 didn't even make military equal to the stats on the general population in the same category, but they published the articles nonetheless In the US, you can be charged with negligent homicide for an accident where you go too wide on a curve and hit a car or when you are speeding when an accident occurs. In fact, I know two people who have had relatives so charged. They were legally responsible for what they did but neither had an ounce of malice when they did it. They simply got careless and screwed up. Sadly, it could happen to any of the rest of us on any given day if we get distracted by the kids in the back seat or try and sneak in a cell phone call at the wrong time. In the second article, they profiled a young National Guardsman who happened to be Mormon. They used the fact that he was Mormon to try and claim that he would have been like "this" if it weren't for his military service which made him like "that" The problem was that they didn't do their homework very welll. I have many, many friends in the church who are in the Guard. I even know someone in the Guard who left to serve a 2-year mission. Before he left, he was required to provide the Guard with a letter signed by the leader of the ENTIRE LDS church that promised to recall him from his mission if his Guard unit was activated. His Guard unit was activated and he was recalled just as promised well before his Guard unit actually deployed. (In fact, he came home nearly a year before the unit actually deployed.) The article tried to claim that he couldn't go on a mission because of his service which was completely incorrect. The young man was not originally charged in the death of his wife, but confessed later. What the article glossed over was that he also was witnessing his parents long marriage disintegrate in the same period and was depondent over that as well. By the time I was done reading, I wasn't convinced he actually killed her either. I don't doubt he has PSTD, but wondered if he was actually confessing to something that didn't ACTUALLY do because of his overall depression. That was the balance that I thought of when I saw your source.
I never claimed the source was non-partisan.
The balance comment was because the accusations against Hillary all appeared to also come from very partisan sources.
Finding non-partisan sources is near impossible.
The second article I found, the one from snopes that debunked all the quotes was a source I would call much more non-partisan. I would bet that there is also information on that site debunking the misquotes and misrepresentations made of George W. Bush.
Honestly I think most of the nasty things said about politicians from either side are untrue. I find it sad that a lot of people seem to buy into what they hear without taking a critical look at things. (That last comment is not aimed at you Wichita - it's more of a general observation)
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 10 2008, 04:22 AM
Post #104
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 10 2008, 03:27 AM
- Wichita
- Feb 9 2008, 08:46 AM
- Minuet
- Feb 9 2008, 05:13 AM
- Quote:
-
I found Minuet's commet posted earlier to be interesting because she used a very partisian source to "prove" that other sources were partisian. If conservative sources are going to be rejected, then liberal ones should be as well - and her source was VERY liberal.
For the record I didn't set out to "prove" anything and I specifically said that I was posting that source to show the other side of the story and provide some balance. In fact this is what I said - Quote:
-
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich. While trying to get more information I came accross the following article from 2002. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but I thought I would post it here in the interest of balance.
OK, but that doesn't make the source you used any less partisian. To provide some balance to your "balance" .... the same source recently devoted a considerable time, money and newspapers space to a multi-part series. The subject? Iraqi and Afghanistan vets are violent time bombs - as a result of their military service - ready to go off. It named 121 cases where veterans had been convicted or charged in cases where deaths had occurred. Now, as someone who has seen Vietnam vets characterized as "violent killers", the intent to smear our current military members was clear and obvious. I read two of the articles before being to disgusted to continue. In the first they presented the numbers. When you got past the headlines, you found the number of 121 included traffic accidents where someone died. In those cases, there was no evidence of violence or even of alcohol or drugs. Given the number of people who have served in the Middle East in the last 6 years, 121 didn't even make military equal to the stats on the general population in the same category, but they published the articles nonetheless In the US, you can be charged with negligent homicide for an accident where you go too wide on a curve and hit a car or when you are speeding when an accident occurs. In fact, I know two people who have had relatives so charged. They were legally responsible for what they did but neither had an ounce of malice when they did it. They simply got careless and screwed up. Sadly, it could happen to any of the rest of us on any given day if we get distracted by the kids in the back seat or try and sneak in a cell phone call at the wrong time. In the second article, they profiled a young National Guardsman who happened to be Mormon. They used the fact that he was Mormon to try and claim that he would have been like "this" if it weren't for his military service which made him like "that" The problem was that they didn't do their homework very welll. I have many, many friends in the church who are in the Guard. I even know someone in the Guard who left to serve a 2-year mission. Before he left, he was required to provide the Guard with a letter signed by the leader of the ENTIRE LDS church that promised to recall him from his mission if his Guard unit was activated. His Guard unit was activated and he was recalled just as promised well before his Guard unit actually deployed. (In fact, he came home nearly a year before the unit actually deployed.) The article tried to claim that he couldn't go on a mission because of his service which was completely incorrect. The young man was not originally charged in the death of his wife, but confessed later. What the article glossed over was that he also was witnessing his parents long marriage disintegrate in the same period and was depondent over that as well. By the time I was done reading, I wasn't convinced he actually killed her either. I don't doubt he has PSTD, but wondered if he was actually confessing to something that didn't ACTUALLY do because of his overall depression. That was the balance that I thought of when I saw your source.
I never claimed the source was non-partisan. The balance comment was because the accusations against Hillary all appeared to also come from very partisan sources. Finding non-partisan sources is near impossible. The second article I found, the one from snopes that debunked all the quotes was a source I would call much more non-partisan. I would bet that there is also information on that site debunking the misquotes and misrepresentations made of George W. Bush. Honestly I think most of the nasty things said about politicians from either side are untrue. I find it sad that a lot of people seem to buy into what they hear without taking a critical look at things. (That last comment is not aimed at you Wichita - it's more of a general observation)
Ummmmm, Minuet ....
I NEVER claimed that you said the source was non-partisian.
You did, however, say that you were using it to provide "balance" to other sources. I simply was providing "balance" to your "balance".
After all, you just said:
- Minuet
-
The balance comment was because the accusations against Hillary all appeared to also come from very partisan sources.
You certainly IMPLIED earlier that the other sources were partisian and here you confirm that, in fact, YOU saw them as partisian.
I saw your article as very partisian and said so as well.
You have to remember that Hillary Clinton has used the bogey man of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to try and excuse many, many of the mistakes of her and her husband. As your article demonstrated, the NTY, as well as some others, are more than willing to play along with her at every opportunity.
It is ONE of the reasons - her unwillingness to take responsibility for her own action even in little, relatively unconsequential things - that she is SO disliked by so many people. Which is the topic of the thread after all ...
As I demonstrated earlier, I see it as very "handy" that the other sources are seen as "very partisian". The people MOST likely to have been the recipient of her attitude about military members are probably conservatives. But, we can't believe them because they ARE conservatives. Therefore we have no "proof" that it ever occured.
There is no chance that she would e-v-e-r treat a conservative military person different than a liberal military person.
After all, it not like she ever claimed that all members of the right were out to get her and her husband.
Oh, what a minute .... :lol:
Ok, back to being serious.....
I do have ONE question about what you said in your last two posts that I would appreciate you clearing up.
You said:
- Minuet
-
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich.
And ...
- Minuet
-
I found references - but they were all refering back to one single source - the book I mentioned earlier that was authored by Gary Aldrich. Is that the book you read, or did you read a different book?
Which was it?
"A lot" or All"?
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 10 2008, 04:32 AM
Post #105
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
One other reason that Hillary is so disliked ....
Although it is technically not her fault, it does grate on people and she is the recipient of them being annoyed at what was done.
Yesterday, I got my weekly Time Magazine. I actually seldom read it anymore, but yersterday I did.
They had a glowing article about Hillary and what she faces on the campaign trail. At least in part, they were trying to make the case that she is treated differently because she is a woman.
One of the incidents they brought up was one from about a month ago when a man stood up at one of her rallies with a sign and screamed "iron my shirt" - which is what the sign said as well.
Now, within 24 hours of the incident, it was proven that the man and his partner were from a shock jock radio's program and there was nothing political about the action. They were solely looking for the PR.
The Time Magazine article NEVER once included that it was a radio promotion. NEVER. Each time it was mentioned, it was treated as if it was completely on the level despite the fact it was long ago proven to be nothing.
Again, it's not her fault that they completely misrepresented the event in the article (and more than once), but the result of the article is that I question everything else that they claim about her.
|
|
|
| |